Team Goal Commitment and Team Effectiveness: The … · Team Goal Commitment and Team Effectiveness: The Role of Task Interdependence and Supportive Behaviors ... according to the

Team Goal Commitment and Team Effectiveness: The Role of TaskInterdependence and Supportive Behaviors

Caroline AubeHEC Montreal

Vincent RousseauUniversity of Montreal

The objectives of this study were to test the relationships between team goal commit-ment and 3 criteria of team effectiveness (i.e., team performance, quality of groupexperience, and team viability) as well as to examine the moderating effect of taskinterdependence and the mediating role of supportive behaviors. Data were gatheredfrom a sample of 74 teams working in 13 Canadian organizations. Results indicated thatteam goal commitment is positively related to all 3 criteria of team effectiveness. Inaddition, task interdependence moderates the relationship between team goal commit-ment and team performance. Furthermore, supportive behaviors mediate the relation-ships that team goal commitment has with team performance and the quality of groupexperience. Implications of these findings and future research needs are discussed.

Keywords: work teams, team goal commitment, team effectiveness, task interdepen-dence, supportive behaviors

Increasingly, much of the work in NorthAmerican and European organizations is ac-complished in teams (Porter & Beyerlein,2000). According to many authors, the imple-mentation of teams is one of the most commonchanges in work settings (Devine, 2002; Mohr-man, Cohen, & Mohrman, 1995; Sundstrom,McIntyre, Halfhill, & Richards, 2000). A workteam may be defined as a permanent and formalgroup of at least two interdependent individualswho are collectively responsible for the accom-plishment of one or several tasks set by theorganization (Gladstein, 1984; Sundstrom, De-Meuse, & Futrell, 1990). Many advantages areassociated with the use of work teams in orga-nizations, including increased productivity,flexibility, innovation, and employee satisfac-tion, as well as decreased production costs, turn-over, and absenteeism (Goodman, Ravlin, &Schminke, 1987; West, Borrill, & Unsworth,1998). Nevertheless, it remains that the pres-

ence of work teams is not a panacea for allorganizational problems (Buzaglo & Wheelan,1999; Mueller, Procter, & Buchanan, 2000).Whereas some teams are very successful, othersare confronted with a series of failures. Clearly,it is not sufficient to merely put individualstogether in the hope that they will automaticallyknow how to work effectively in a team(Rentsch, Heffner, & Duffy, 1994; Salas, Bowers,& Cannon-Bowers, 1995).

In this context, many studies have indicatedthat goal setting at the team level is an inter-vention that considerably enhances team perfor-mance (for research reviews, see Aube, Rous-seau, & Savoie, in press; Locke & Latham,1990; O’Leary-Kelly, Martocchio, & Frink,1994; Weldon & Weingart, 1993). In work set-tings, a team goal generally refers to the level oftask outcomes that team members have toachieve (Weldon & Weingart, 1993). In otherwords, it establishes the threshold of successexplicitly in terms of quantity, quality, speed ofwork, or deadlines (e.g., produce 25 units beforethe end of the month; reduce returns by 15%over the next year). Setting a goal at the teamlevel means that team members must reach itcollectively. Thus, team goals are connected tothe performance of the team. Even if teammembers are involved in the goal-setting pro-cess, in hierarchical work teams, supervisors

Caroline Aube, Department of Management, HEC Mon-treal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Vincent Rousseau, Schoolof Industrial Relations, University of Montreal, Montreal,Quebec, Canada.

Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-dressed to Caroline Aube, HEC Montreal, 3000 Chemin dela Cote-Sainte-Catherine, Montreal, Quebec H3T 2A7, Can-ada. E-mail: [email protected]

Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice Copyright 2005 by the Educational Publishing Foundation2005, Vol. 9, No. 3, 189–204 1089-2699/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1089-2699.9.3.189

189

usually set team goals (Manz & Sims, 1987).These assigned goals are described as officialbecause they publicly reflect the legitimate pur-pose and mission of the team (Perrow, 1961).

A substantial amount of research on goalprocesses has been carried out at the individualand group (team) level (for a review, see Locke& Latham, 1990). The core findings of thesestudies are that specific and difficult goals leadto higher levels of performance than do easygoals or no goals (Locke & Latham, 2002).However, according to the goal-setting theory, agoal cannot have an impact on performanceunless it is accepted and internalized by theindividual (Earley & Shalley, 1991). In otherwords, as Hollenbeck and Klein (1987) stated,“goal commitment is a necessary condition forgoal setting to work” (p. 219). In team settings,team goal commitment means that team mem-bers feel an attachment to the team goals andthat they are determined to reach these goals(Weldon & Weingart, 1993).

Many authors have focused on the measure-ment of goal commitment (e.g., DeShon & Lan-dis, 1997; Hollenbeck, Klein, O’Leary, &Wright, 1989; Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck,Wright, & DeShon, 2001), the antecedents ofgoal commitment (e.g., Hollenbeck & Klein,1987; Hollenbeck, Williams, & Klein, 1989),and especially the moderating effect of goalcommitment on the relationship between goaldifficulty and performance (e.g., Locke, 1968;see the meta-analysis of Donovan & Radose-vich, 1998). Much less attention has been givento the effects of goal commitment on the behav-ior of individuals and on individual and teamoutcomes. Some studies have indicated thatgoal commitment at the individual level may beassociated with work-related processes and out-comes (e.g., Klein & Kim, 1998; Renn, 2003).At the team level, studies have investigated theinfluence that group (team) goal commitmentmay have on group (team) performance (e.g.,Hecht, Allen, Klammer, & Kelly, 2002; Hyatt &Ruddy, 1997). However, the research on teamgoal commitment as a determinant of team per-formance and other criteria of team effective-ness is still in its infancy.

The purpose of this research was to investi-gate the effects of team goal commitment inteam contexts. In the current study, we focusedon commitment toward assigned team goals.More specifically, we aimed to determine the

extent to which team goal commitment is re-lated to team performance and to two additionalcriteria of team effectiveness, namely, the qual-ity of group experience and team viability.Moreover, we investigated the moderating ef-fect of task interdependence on these relation-ships. Finally, the mediating role of supportivebehaviors in the relationships between teamgoal commitment and the three criteria of teameffectiveness was examined.

Effects of Team Goal Commitment

Commitment to team goals is generally un-derstood in an expectancy–value framework(Weldon & Weingart, 1993). Specifically, com-mitment is a function of the expectancy thatgoal attainment is possible and the attractive-ness or value placed on reaching the team goals.Conceptually, individuals who are highly com-mitted to a goal direct their cognitive and be-havioral resources toward attaining the goal,whereas individuals with low-goal commitmentmay be distracted from the assigned goal andmay put efforts into unrelated activities becausethey have not internalized the goal (Renn,2003).

The role of team goal commitment in teamperformance depends on the conceptualizationof performance. As stated by Wofford, Good-win, and Premack (1992), “the performancevariable has been operationalized in two waysin goal setting literature: that is, (a) as the quan-tity or quality of output or productivity and (b)as the discrepancy between the goal level andthe performance level (goal achievement)” (p.600). With regard to the first conceptualization,which is often used in laboratory studies, re-search indicated that goal difficulty level inter-acts with goal commitment to predict perfor-mance (Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck, & Alge,1999). More specifically, the highest level oftask outcomes can be reached when individualshave to attain difficult goals and are committedto them. Either goal difficulty level or goalcommitment may have a main effect on perfor-mance when the range of the other variable isrestricted. Thus, difficult goals can lead tohigher levels of performance than easy goals, ifthe individuals are committed to the goals (Hol-lenbeck & Klein, 1987). Furthermore, whengoals of equivalent difficulty level are assignedto individuals, those who are strongly commit-

190 AUBE AND ROUSSEAU

ted to these goals will perform better than thosewho are less committed to these goals (Klein &Kim, 1998). In short, goal difficulty level andgoal commitment interact with each other todetermine the level of task outcomes (Weldon& Weingart, 1993).

In accordance with the second conceptualiza-tion, the assessment of team performance con-sists in comparing task outcome level with thestandards established by team goals (Hackman,1987; Pritchard, Jones, Roth, Stuebing, & Eke-berg, 1988; Reilly & McGourty, 1998). Themore the task outcome level is close to or ex-ceeds the level established by the goal, thebetter is the team performance. In organiza-tional settings, the supervisors transmit theirexpectations about the required level of taskoutcomes to team members and judge theteam’s productivity and the quality of its workaccording to the assigned goals. Consideringthis view of team performance (i.e., in terms ofgoal attainment), team goal commitment mayhave a main effect on team performance regard-less of the goal difficulty level (Wofford et al.,1992). Indeed, it does not matter much whetherthe team goals are easy or difficult, becauseteam performance refers to the level of goalattainment. Consequently, the more the teammembers are committed to their assigned teamgoals, the more they will be willing to takemeasures to reach them and the better will betheir team performance.

The current study investigated in organiza-tional settings the relationship between teamgoal commitment and team performance as-sessed as a function of assigned team goals. Atthe empirical level, some studies with under-graduates have confirmed that team goal com-mitment may increase the level of task out-comes when difficult goals are assigned (Klein& Mulvey, 1995; Mulvey & Klein, 1998;Resick & Bloom, 1997; Whitney, 1994), butthey have provided no information regardinggoal attainment. In field settings, only the studyby Hyatt and Ruddy (1997) supports the linkbetween team goal commitment and a criterionmeasure similar to goal attainment (i.e., thecomparison between the average response timeand an organizational plan). To test whether themain effect of team goal commitment on teamperformance is supported in organizational con-texts, we put forward the following, first hy-pothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Team goal commitment ispositively related to team performance.

Other Criteria of Team Effectiveness

Given that the purpose of a team is to producea good or a service, team performance is themost frequently used criterion of team effective-ness (Ilgen, 1999; Shea & Guzzo, 1987). How-ever, team performance is not the only effec-tiveness criterion that is relevant in organiza-tional settings. Indeed, considering the multipleconstituency approach, team effectiveness canbe assessed by different constituencies, such assupervisors and team members (Hackman,1987; Pritchard et al., 1988; West et al., 1998).From this perspective, in addition to team per-formance, two other criteria of team effective-ness were taken into account in this research,namely, the quality of group experience andteam viability. The quality of group experiencerefers to the extent to which the social climatewithin the work team is positive (McGrath,1991; Repetti, 1987). The use of this criterionenables one to assess whether team membershave developed and maintained positive rela-tionships while accomplishing their tasks. Thiscriterion is similar to McGrath’s (1991) notionof group well-being, which is defined as themaintenance of positive interaction among teammembers. However, because well-being is anexperience of the individual (Repetti, 1987), thelabel quality of group experience was choseninstead of group well-being. This is intended toreflect a team-level construct as opposed tomember well-being, which is an individual-level construct (Sonnentag, 1996). Nonetheless,these two constructs are closely connected, be-cause a positive social environment is likely tobe necessary for psychological well-being ofindividuals (Repetti, 1987). Moreover, Hack-man (1987) argued that “the group experienceshould, on balance, satisfy rather than frustratethe personal needs of group members” (p. 323).Consequently, the quality of group experiencereflects the team members’ point of view aboutthe common social environment.

Team goal commitment may be related to thequality of group experience. Indeed, team mem-bers committed to team goals are likely to rec-ognize that they are collectively accountable forachieving them, which induces a “we are in ittogether” attitude within the team (Tjosvold,

191TEAM GOAL COMMITMENT AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

1984). Thus, the determination to reach sharedgoals is likely to incite team members to facil-itate building and maintaining positive relation-ships within the team in order to join theirefforts to attain team goals (Weldon & Wein-gart, 1993). On this basis, team goal commit-ment is likely to enhance the quality of groupexperience. We formulated the following hy-pothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Team goal commitment ispositively related to the quality of groupexperience.

Team viability may be defined as the team’scapacity to adapt to internal and externalchanges as well as the probability that teammembers will continue to work together in thefuture (Hackman, 1987; Sundstrom et al., 1990;West et al., 1998). Throughout the team’s exis-tence, team members may have to deal withmany changes, such as working with newequipment and integrating a new member.Team viability is likely to be increased by teamgoal commitment, because the commitment to agoal implies that individuals persist in the faceof difficulties (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham,1981). Thus, team members who are highlycommitted to their team goal will take action tocope with internal or external changes in orderto reach the team goals. Team members who arenot very committed to their team goals would beless inclined to really try to adapt to changes.Considering that team goal commitment is ex-pected to correlate positively with team viabil-ity, we put forward the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Team goal commitment ispositively related to team viability.

Moderating Role of Task Interdependence

According to many authors, task interdepen-dence is likely to moderate1 the relationshipbetween team goal commitment and team per-formance (Klein & Mulvey, 1995; Resick &Bloom, 1997; Weldon & Weingart, 1993). Taskinterdependence is defined as the extent towhich the behavior of one team member influ-ences the performance of others (Thompson,1967). In other words, it is the extent to whichteam members must actually work together toperform the task (Van de Ven, Delbecq, &

Koenig, 1976). When the interdependence ishigh, team members should contribute interac-tively to task accomplishment (Tesluk, Mathieu,Zaccaro, & Marks, 1997). When the interdepen-dence is low, team members have to work in-dependently from each other. The moderatingeffect of task interdependence would appear tobe as follows: The higher the task interdepen-dence, the more team goal commitment is con-nected to team performance. That is, team goalcommitment would have a greater impact onteam performance in a context where team per-formance corresponds to the result of a collec-tive effort (high interdependence) than in a con-text where team performance refers essentiallyto the sum of the individual contributions (lowinterdependence). Thus, at a lower level of taskinterdependence, team members should focusmore on individual accomplishment than onteam accomplishment, and consequently, teamgoal commitment may have a lower impact onteam performance. However, the moderatingrole of task interdependence on the relationshipbetween team goal commitment and team per-formance remains to be supported by empiricaldata. Thus, we formulated the following hy-pothesis:

Hypothesis 4: The higher the task interde-pendence is, the stronger is the relationshipbetween team goal commitment and teamperformance.

Taking into account that task interdepen-dence may moderate the link between team goalcommitment and team performance, we de-signed the current study to be an exploratoryexamination of the moderating effect of taskinterdependence on the relationships involvingthe other two criteria of team effectiveness.Thus, the higher the task interdependence is, thestronger the impact that team goal commitmentmay have on the quality of group experienceand team viability. We therefore formulated thefollowing hypotheses:

Hypothesis 5: The higher the task interde-pendence is, the stronger is the relationship

1 A variable plays a moderating role when it affects thedirection and/or the strength of the relation between twoother variables (Baron & Kenny, 1986).


between team goal commitment and thequality of group experience.

Hypothesis 6: The higher the task interde-pendence is, the stronger is the relationshipbetween team goal commitment and teamviability.

Mediating Role of Supportive Behaviors

The relationships between team goal commit-ment and the criteria of team effectiveness arelikely to involve behavioral processes (Klein &Mulvey, 1995; Resick & Bloom, 1997; Weldon& Weingart, 1993). Indeed, team goal commit-ment cannot directly influence team effective-ness if team members do not show some keybehaviors. The most likely behavioral processthat could mediate2 these relationships is sup-portive behaviors, which may be defined as theextent to which team members voluntarily pro-vide assistance to each other when needed dur-ing task accomplishment. These behaviors re-flect the enacted support that team membersprovide by choice to each other. Both instru-mental and emotional supports are integratedinto this behavioral process (Tardy, 1985). In-strumental support includes the various types oftangible help that other team members mayprovide (e.g., help with difficult tasks). Emo-tional support refers to the things that teammembers do that make others feel appreciatedand cared for, that bolster their sense of self-worth (e.g., providing encouragement and pos-itive feedback). We chose the label supportivebehaviors instead of social support (Campion,Medsker, & Higgs, 1993), supportiveness(Gladstein, 1984), backup behaviors (Marks,Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001), or cooperation(Eby & Dobbins, 1997) to better reflect theenacted instrumental and emotional supportamong team members.

Team goal commitment is likely to influencesupportive behaviors because of the collectivenature of team goals (Weldon & Weingart,1993). Considering that team goal attainmentrequires the contributions of all team members,their determination to reach these goals wouldlead them to support each other in order thateveryone in the work team contribute to taskaccomplishment. In turn, supportive behaviorsare likely to improve team performance (Cam-pion et al., 1993). Indeed, these behaviors en-

able team members to effectively cope with thedifferent events or situations that can lessentheir will to contribute to task accomplishment.By supporting each other, team members pro-mote the integration of their contributionsthrough mutual facilitation (Erez, Lepine, &Elms, 2002). Consequently, team members cancomplete their respective tasks in situations inwhich they would have difficulty doing it indi-vidually (Eby & Dobbins, 1997; Weldon &Weingart, 1993). In other words, team memberscan achieve tasks and reach goals that could notbe accomplished otherwise (Yeatts & Hyten,1998).

At the empirical level, some studies haverevealed that team goal commitment is relatedto team members’ supportive behaviors (Hyatt& Ruddy, 1997), which in return are correlatedto team performance (e.g., Alper, Tjosvold, &Law, 1998; Campion et al., 1993; Campion,Papper, & Medsker, 1996; Eby & Dobbins,1997). However, none of these studies has ex-plicitly tested the mediating role of supportivebehaviors and has appropriately covered bothinstrumental and emotional forms of support.The expected mediating role of supportive be-haviors was tested in this study.

Hypothesis 7: Supportive behaviors medi-ate the relationship between team goalcommitment and team performance.

Supportive behaviors are also likely to influ-ence the other two criteria of team effective-ness, namely, the quality of group experienceand team viability. More specifically, the sup-port that team members provide to each othercan contribute to improve the social climate inwork teams (Sarason, Sarason, & Shearin,1986). Indeed, supportive behaviors may boostself-esteem, strengthen morale, or provide asense of affiliation, which may improve thequality of group experience (Heaney, Price, &Rafferty, 1995). Furthermore, by supportingeach other, team members may be more able tocope with the internal and external changes thattheir team must face, which may increase teamviability (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997; Sin-clair, 2003). Consequently, this study tested the

2 A mediating variable indicates a variable being betweenthe independent and dependent variables in a causal chain(Baron & Kenny, 1986).


possibility that supportive behaviors act as amediating variable in the relationships that teamgoal commitment may have with the quality ofgroup experience and team viability. We formu-lated the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 8: Supportive behaviors medi-ate the relationship between team goalcommitment and the quality of groupexperience.

Hypothesis 9: Supportive behaviors medi-ate the relationship between team goalcommitment and team viability.

Method

Procedure and Sample

The research was conducted in work settings.Organizations were invited to participate in thestudy through written invitations. Follow-upphone interviews were also conducted to pro-vide additional information about the researchto the managers and to gain information aboutthe teams working in the organizations.

For validity reasons, team selection is a cru-cial step in a field study. For that matter, it isadvisable to make sure that groups identified bythe business management are real work teams,as defined in this article. Five criteria were usedto select the teams (Hackman, 1987; Ilgen,1999; Sundstrom et al., 1990): (a) The team hadto be recognized as a formal group in the orga-nization; (b) the team’s mission had to be con-nected to the production of a good or a service;(c) team members had to interact and shareresources in order to accomplish their tasks,which means they are interdependent; (d) theteam had to be embedded in a larger organiza-tional environment in which it maintains rela-tionships with external agents, such as suppli-ers, customers, and other teams; and (e) teammembers had to work together on a relativelypermanent basis, which means that the team’slifetime is undetermined. On the basis of thesecriteria, the sample was made up of 74 workteams working in 13 organizations located inthe province of Quebec (Canada). These orga-nizations were from both public (43%) and pri-vate (57%) sectors.

To establish the boundaries of each team, twocriteria were used. Participants had to (a) havebeen a member of the team for at least 3 months

and (b) work with other team members at least40% of the team’s work time (e.g., each partic-ipant had to work within the team at least 2 daysduring a workweek of 5 days). Individuals whomet these criteria were judged sufficientlyaware of the workings of their team to partici-pate in the study. Thus, team size varied be-tween 2 and 22 members (M � 6.3; SD � 4.3).A total of 392 team members participated in thisresearch. The participation rate within teamsvaried between 50% and 100% (M � 90%;SD � 15%). As for the supervisors, each one ofthe 74 work teams participated in this researchand was assigned to the same team for at least 6months. It should be noted that supervisors arenot considered team members in the currentstudy.

Data were collected using the survey method.Questionnaires were administered to employeesand supervisors in an on-site meeting room dur-ing regular scheduled working hours. All surveyadministrations were conducted by two pre-trained research assistants. Participants were in-formed that the study aimed to investigate teamfunctioning. They were also told that all indi-vidual responses would be kept confidential andanonymous. Before completing the survey, par-ticipants read and signed the informed consentform. The research assistants were unaware ofthe hypotheses of the present study.

Measures

The data were collected from two sources,namely, team members and their supervisors.Team members assessed team goal commit-ment, supportive behaviors, task interdepen-dence, and the quality of group experience. Su-pervisors, for their part, appraised team perfor-mance, team viability, and team size. Thismultisource assessment made it possible toreduce common method biases (Podsakoff,MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).

For all measures except team size, eachitem was linked to a 5-point scale rangingfrom not true at all (1) to totally true (5).Respondents were asked to refer to the teamin which they work or the team that theysupervise while completing the questionnaire.In order to avoid errors concerning the levelof analysis, each item explicitly referred tothe team. The questionnaire was written in


French. Consequently, the items shown belowhave been translated into English.

Team goal commitment. Commitment tothe team goals was assessed using three itemsfrom the measure provided by Klein et al.(2001). The items were adapted to reflectteam rather than individual goals. The Cron-bach coefficient alpha calculated in this studywas .85. It should be noted that Klein et al.’soriginal scale contained five items. However,following a content analysis of the items, weremoved two items because they were notconsistent enough with the definition of teamgoal commitment (DeShon & Landis, 1997).More specifically, one item aimed to measureperceptions of goal difficulty (“It is hard totake this goal seriously”); the other was ratherspeculative and did not reflect the actual de-termination to attain the goal (“It would nottake much to make me abandon this goal”).Consequently, three items were retained fromKlein et al.’s original scale and were adaptedto the team level to form the team goal com-mitment scale. The items retained were (a)“We are committed to pursuing the team’sgoal”; (b) “We think it is important to reachthe team’s goal”; and (c) “We really careabout achieving the team’s goal.” This lastitem was reworded as a positive statement toavoid reducing the validity of scale responsesor inducing systematic error to the scale(Hinkin, 1995).

Task interdependence. Task interdepen-dence was assessed using an adapted version ofCampion et al.’s (1993) three-item measure(e.g., “In order to accomplish our work, we needeach member’s contribution”). For this study,the Cronbach coefficient alpha was .78.

Supportive behaviors. No unique scale inthe scientific literature provided a complete as-sessment of supportive behaviors as defined inthis article. Therefore, a five-item scale of sup-portive behaviors was derived from a contentanalysis of existing measures (Campion et al.,1993; Dominick, Reilly, & McGourty, 1997;Hyatt & Ruddy, 1997; Podsakoff, Ahearne, &MacKenzie, 1997). This scale taps both instru-mental and emotional forms of support amongteam members. The items are listed in the Ap-pendix. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for thisscale was .89.

Criteria of work team effectiveness. Themeasures related to the three criteria of team

effectiveness were developed for this researchusing the subject matter expert method. Morespecifically, two professors and three PhDcandidates formulated items according to ananalysis of construct domain of team perfor-mance, the quality of group experience, andteam viability. The three items assessing teamperformance concern team goal achievement,work quality, and productivity. To assess thequality of group experience, three items con-cerning the quality of intrateam social climatewere used. Finally, the team viability scaleincluded four items designed to measure theteam’s capacity to adapt to changes, to solveproblems, to integrate new members, and tocontinue to work together in the future. Theitems are listed in the Appendix. The Cron-bach coefficient alphas were .82 for teamperformance, .96 for the quality of group ex-perience, and .84 for team viability.

Team size. Team supervisors were asked toreport the number of members in each workteam.

Results

Data Aggregation and PreliminaryAnalysis

Even though the participants completed theirquestionnaires individually, the level of analysisof each variable is the team. Consequently, in-dividual team members’ perceptions were ag-gregated by taking the average team memberresponse and expressing that as a team value.To determine whether aggregation was appro-priate, we assessed within-group interrateragreement, using rwg (James, Demaree, & Wolf,1984, 1993). Within-group interrater agreementwas calculated for each team on each of thevariables except for team performance and teamviability, which were assessed by the supervi-sors. The obtained values were then averagedacross the 74 work teams. Aggregation is justi-fied when the average rwg coefficient for eachvariable is greater than .70, which was the casein this study (see Table 1).

Descriptive statistics (M and SD) and coeffi-cient alphas for each variable are shown inTable 1. Coefficient alphas varied from .78 to.96, indicating that the measures used in thisstudy were fairly reliable. Moreover, signifi-cance tests (skewness, kurtosis, and Kolmogo-


rov–Smirnov) revealed that every variableshowed a roughly normal distribution. In addi-tion, examination of the residuals indicated thatmultivariate assumptions of linearity and ho-moscedasticity were respected for all variables.It should be noted that team size was includedas a control variable in all analyses because itmay have had an impact on the key variables(e.g., Curral, Forrester, Dawson, & West, 2001).

Relationships Between Team GoalCommitment and the Criteria of TeamEffectiveness

Regression analyses were used to examinethe first, second, and third hypotheses, whichconcern relationships between team goal com-mitment and the criteria of team effectiveness.As predicted, team goal commitment was pos-itively and significantly ( p � .05) related toteam performance, the quality of group experi-

ence, and team viability (see Table 2). Thus,team goal commitment explained between 6.5%and 9.1% of the variance of the criteria of teameffectiveness. The effect size of the relation-ships involving team performance and the qual-ity of group experience can be qualified as mod-erate, whereas the effect size of the relationshipinvolving team viability can be qualified aslow–moderate (Cohen, 1992).

Moderating Effect of TaskInterdependence

The fourth, fifth, and sixth hypotheses pre-dicted that task interdependence positivelymoderates the relationship between team goalcommitment and the criteria of team effec-tiveness. These hypotheses were testedthrough a hierarchical multiple regression intwo steps, which is the procedure proposed byCohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003). In

Table 1Means, Standard Deviations, Average rwg, Reliabilities, and Correlations Between Variables

Variable M SD rwg 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Team goal commitment 3.89 0.54 .82 (.85)2. Task interdependence 3.70 0.46 .72 .25* (.78)3. Supportive behaviors 3.66 0.46 .83 .59** .40** (.89)4. Team performance 3.88 0.70 — .30** .03 .36** (.82)5. Quality of group experience 3.60 0.58 .78 .31** .24* .67** .25* (.96)6. Team viability 3.85 0.79 — .26* .01 .29* .76** .19 (.84)7. Team size 6.26 4.35 — .10 .12 �.05 .10 .11 .08

Note. N � 74 teams. Reliability estimates (Cronbach’s alphas) are in parentheses.* p � .05. ** p � .01.

Table 2Team Goal Commitment Main Effect Analyses

Model B SE B � �R2

Dependent variable: Team performanceStep 1: Team size .01 .02 .07 .009Step 2: Team goal commitment .38 .15 .29* .085*

Dependent variable: Quality of group experienceStep 1: Team size .01 .02 .08 .012Step 2: Team goal commitment .33 .12 .30** .091**

Dependent variable: Team viabilityStep 1: Team size .01 .02 .05 .006Step 2: Team goal commitment .38 .17 .26* .065*

Dependent variable: Supportive behaviorsStep 1: Team size �.01 .01 �.11 .002Step 2: Team goal commitment .51 .08 .60** .360**

Note. N � 74 teams.* p � .05. ** p � .01.


the first step, the dependent variable is re-gressed on both the independent and moder-ating variables. In the second step, an inter-action term, created by the multiplication ofthe scores obtained from the two variablesentered in the first step, is added to the re-gression model. To reduce the problem ofmulticollinearity due to the correlation be-tween the first two variables entered in themodel and the interaction term, the scores ofthe variables are centered before being mul-tiplied. The moderating effect is supportedwhen the regression coefficient associatedwith the interaction term is significant.

As expected, results revealed that task in-terdependence moderated the relationship be-tween team goal commitment and team per-formance. Indeed, the results of the hierarchi-cal multiple regression in Table 3 show thatthe regression coefficient corresponding tothe interaction term was significant ( p � .05).More specifically, team goal commitment andtask interdependence explained 9% of teamperformance variance. The addition of theinteraction term in the regression model sig-nificantly increased the percentage of ex-plained variance by 6%. However, results in-dicate that task interdependence did not sig-nificantly moderate the relationships betweenteam goal commitment and the two other cri-teria of team effectiveness, namely, the qual-

ity of group experience and team viability(see Table 3).

To illustrate the moderating effect, Cohen etal. (2003) recommended plotting the regressionof the dependent variable on the independentvariable at three values of the moderating vari-able. These values are the mean of task inter-dependence, one standard deviation below themean, and one standard deviation above themean. Figure 1 illustrates how the relationshipbetween team goal commitment and team per-formance varies as a function of task interde-pendence. A visual inspection of this figurereveals that the form of the interaction is con-sistent with Hypothesis 4. Indeed, the higher thetask interdependence is, the stronger is the re-lationship between team goal commitment andteam performance.

Mediating Role of Supportive Behaviors

Hypotheses 7, 8, and 9 predicted that support-ive behaviors would mediate the relationshipsbetween team goal commitment and the threecriteria of team effectiveness, namely, team per-formance, the quality of group experience, andteam viability. These hypotheses were testedusing the method set out by Baron and Kenny(1986). According to these authors, a mediatingeffect is confirmed when the following fourconditions are satisfied: (a) the mediating vari-

Table 3Task Interdependence Moderating Effect Analyses


Dependent variable: Team performanceStep 1: Team size .01 .01 .09 .009Step 2: Team goal commitment (TGC) .48 .15 .37**

Task interdependence (TI) �.08 .18 �.05 .088*Step 3: TGC � TI .60 .27 .25* .060*

Dependent variable: Quality of group experienceStep 1: Team size .01 .02 .05 .012Step 2: TGC .25 .13 .23

TI .20 .15 .16 .117*Step 3: TGC � TI �.26 .23 �.13 .016

Dependent variable: Team viabilityStep 1: Team size .01 .02 .06 .006Step 2: TGC .45 .18 .31

TI �.10 .21 �.06 .069Step 3: TGC � TI .38 .32 .14 .019

Note. N � 74 teams.* p � .05. ** p � .01.


able (supportive behaviors) must be signifi-cantly related to the dependent variable (eachcriterion of work team effectiveness); (b) theindependent variable (team goal commitment)must be significantly associated with the medi-ating variable; (c) the independent variablemust be significantly correlated with the depen-dent variable; and (d) while regressing the de-pendent variable on both the independent andmediating variables, the regression coefficientof the mediating variable must be significant. Ifany of these conditions is not respected, thenresults do not support the mediating effect. Oth-erwise, if all conditions are held, the regressioncoefficient of the independent variable must benonsignificant for a perfect mediation. If theregression coefficient of the independent vari-able is significant, the mediation is said to bepartial, which means that the relationship be-tween the independent variable and the depen-dent variable is not entirely explained by themediating variable.

The regression analyses indicate that the firstthree conditions were satisfied for each hypoth-esis concerning mediating effects. More specif-ically, supportive behaviors were significantly( p � .05) related to team performance, thequality of group experience, and team viability(see Table 4), which supports the first condition.

Team goal commitment was related to support-ive behaviors, which supports the second con-dition (see Table 2). Moreover, team goal com-mitment was significantly related to team per-formance, the quality of group experience, andteam viability (see Table 2). These last resultssupport the third condition.

To test Baron and Kenny’s (1986) fourthcondition, we performed multiple regressionanalyses (see Table 5). When the dependentvariable is team performance or the quality ofgroup experience, the results of the analysesindicate that the regression coefficients associ-ated with supportive behaviors were significant( p � .05) and that the regression coefficientsassociated with team goal commitment werenonsignificant ( p � .05). Consequently, thefourth condition is satisfied in these two firstcases. More specifically, results indicate thatsupportive behaviors seem to have mediatedperfectly the relationships between team goalcommitment and two effectiveness criteria,namely, team performance and the quality ofgroup experience. However, the relationship be-tween team goal commitment and team viabilitydoes not seem to have been mediated by sup-portive behaviors. In this case, the regressioncoefficients of team goal commitment and sup-portive behaviors were nonsignificant ( p � .05).

Figure 1. Relationship between team goal commitment and team performance for high,moderate, and low levels of task interdependence.


In sum, Hypotheses 7 and 8 are supported, butHypothesis 9 is not.

Discussion

With the current study we aimed to investi-gate the consequences of team goal commit-ment in organizational settings. Traditionally,the role of commitment toward goals was lim-ited to a moderating effect on the relationshipbetween goal difficulty level and performance(e.g., Hollenbeck & Klein, 1987). However,more and more authors have emphasized thepotential role of goal commitment as a determi-nant of behaviors and outcomes (e.g., Renn,2003; Wofford et al., 1992). This research is inkeeping with this view and, more precisely,

examines in more depth the relationships be-tween team goal commitment and three criteriaof team effectiveness.

Results supported the predicted main effectsthat team goal commitment is likely to have onthree criteria of team effectiveness. The com-mitment to team goals may influence team per-formance as assessed by the supervisors, whichis consistent with the results of Wofford et al.’s(1992) meta-analysis at the individual level.Moreover, team goal commitment may help toenhance the quality of group experience andteam viability. The effect sizes of team goalcommitment on team performance (�R2 � .085),the quality of group experience (�R2 � .091),and team viability (�R2 � .065) corroboratethat it is a nonnegligible predictor of team ef-

Table 4Supportive Behaviors Main Effect Analyses


Dependent variable: Team performanceStep 1: Team size .02 .02 .11 .009Step 2: Supportive behaviors .56 .17 .36** .131**

Dependent variable: Quality of group experienceStep 1: Team size .02 .01 .14 .012Step 2: Supportive behaviors .85 .11 .67** .453**

Dependent variable: Team viabilityStep 1: Team size .02 .02 .09 .006Step 2: Supportive behaviors .50 .20 .29* .084*

Note. N � 74 teams.* p � .05. ** p � .01.

Table 5Supportive Behaviors Mediating Effect Analyses


Dependent variable: Team performanceStep 1: Team size .02 .02 .10 .009Step 2: Team goal commitment .15 .18 .12

Supportive behaviors .45 .21 .29* .139**Dependent variable: Quality of group experience

Step 1: Team size .02 .01 .16 .012Step 2: Team goal commitment �.17 .12 �.16

Supportive behaviors .97 .14 .77** .469**Dependent variable: Team viability

Step 1: Team size .01 .02 .07 .006Step 2: Team goal commitment .19 .21 .13

Supportive behaviors .37 .25 .21 .094*

Note. N � 74 teams.* p � .05. ** p � .01.


fectiveness. These results show that commit-ment to team goals may have consequences onoutcomes at the team level.

Furthermore, this study represents the firstattempt to empirically examine the moderatingeffect of task interdependence on the relation-ships between team goal commitment and thecriteria of team effectiveness. As predicted, re-sults indicated that task interdependence signif-icantly moderates the relationship involvingteam performance. More specifically, team goalcommitment is more strongly related to teamperformance when task interdependence is highthan when task interdependence is low. Thisresearch thus highlights the role of task interde-pendence in the study of the determinants of theteam performance. However, at an exploratorystage, task interdependence does not appear tomoderate the relationships between team goalcommitment and the other two criteria of teameffectiveness, namely, the quality of group ex-perience and team viability. Though task inter-dependence influences the capacity of team goalcommitment to increase performance, it doesnot affect the capacity of team goal commitmentto enhance the quality of intrateam social envi-ronment and the adaptation of the team tochanges. In other words, the team members’commitment toward their team goals is likely toincrease the quality of group experience andteam viability regardless of the level of taskinterdependence. Thus, this study reveals thedifferential effect of task interdependence ac-cording to the criteria of team effectiveness.Future studies should investigate other factorsthat might moderate the relationships betweenteam goal commitment and the criteria of teameffectiveness.

This study also reveals that at least two of theobserved relationships between team goal com-mitment and team effectiveness are indirect.The results indicated that supportive behaviorscompletely mediate the relationships that teamgoal commitment has with team performanceand the quality of group experience. These re-sults suggest that team members who are com-mitted to their team goals are likely to adoptmore supportive behaviors, which in turn mayincrease team performance and the quality ofgroup experience. Consequently, the currentstudy shows that team goal commitment mayenhance an important behavioral process thatincreases two key criteria of team effectiveness.

However, the results did not support the medi-ating role of supportive behaviors in the rela-tionship between team goal commitment andteam viability. These last results do not neces-sarily imply that the relationship between teamgoal commitment and team viability is direct.They instead suggest that the mediating processinvolved in this relationship, if there is one,does not correspond to supportive behaviors, atleast as this variable was defined and measuredin this article.

The findings related to team performanceand team viability are less influenced by com-mon method variance, because the indepen-dent variable (team goal commitment) and thedependent variables (team performance andteam viability) have been assessed by twodistinct sources, namely, team members andsupervisors (Podsakoff et al., 2003). There-fore, the relationships involving those vari-ables are less likely to be spuriously inflatedby common method variance. However, theuse of a common source for the measurementof team goal commitment, task interdepen-dence, supportive behaviors, and the qualityof group experience raises the question ofhow much of the explained variance in therelationships between these variables is com-mon method variance and how much is truevariance. Nevertheless, considering the natureof these variables, team members are one ofthe best sources to assess them (Tesluk et al.,1997).

Limitations and Directions for FutureResearch

The present study has a few limitations thatshould be mentioned. First, team performancewas assessed subjectively by the teams’ super-visors, which means that different biases mayinfluence the assessment (e.g., recency effect,central tendency errors). However, consideringthat supervisors are responsible for assigningteam goals and assessing team outcomes in or-ganizational contexts, they are in the best posi-tion to provide data about team performance.Second, this study was based on a cross-sec-tional design in which data were collected dur-ing a one-time assessment without variable ma-nipulation. Therefore, this study does not pro-vide direct evidence of causal links betweenteam goal commitment and the criteria of team


effectiveness. However, given the positive re-sults of this study, experimental and longitudi-nal research should now be conducted in orderto obtain more definitive results about the di-rection of causality. Finally, although the sam-ple size (N � 74 work teams) was quite largefor a study on work teams, it was insufficient toperform structural equation modeling (SEM)analyses. In addition to control measurementerror, SEM is the only analysis that allowscomplete and simultaneous tests of all the rela-tionships. Taking into account the positive re-sults of this research, it would be beneficial infuture research to constitute a larger sample andto perform SEM analyses.

Implications and Conclusion

The prevalence of work teams in organiza-tions highlights the need to understand factorsthat influence team effectiveness. The currentresearch extends the understanding of the mul-tiple effects of team goal commitment. The re-sults of this research indicate that team goalcommitment may have a main effect on teamperformance, the quality of group experience,and team viability. In concrete terms, these re-sults suggest that managers and consultantswould be well advised to promote team mem-bers’ team goal commitment in order to im-prove team effectiveness. For this purpose, Hol-lenbeck and Klein (1987) suggested a numberof ways to enhance the commitment to goals.These ways refer, for example, to the explicit-ness of the goals, the reward structures, andinstrumental support from supervisors. Other-wise, given the encouraging results of thisstudy, research on the nomological net of teamgoal commitment should be pursued. Futureresearch would help to deepen the understand-ing of the antecedents and the consequences ofteam goal commitment in work team settings.

References

Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (1998). Inter-dependence and controversy in group decisionmaking: Antecedents to effective self-managingteams. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-sion Processes, 74, 33–52.

Aube, C., Rousseau, V., & Savoie, A. (in press). Lesinterventions regulatrices groupales et le rende-ment des equipes de travail: Un modele theorique

[Group regulating interventions and team perfor-mance: A theoretical model]. Travail Humain.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The modera-tor–mediator variable distinction in social psycho-logical research: Conceptual, strategic, and statis-tical considerations. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Buzaglo, G., & Wheelan, S. A. (1999). Facilitatingwork team effectiveness: Case studies from Cen-tral America. Small Group Research, 30, 108–129.

Campion, A. C., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C.(1993). Relations between work group character-istics and effectiveness: Implications for designingeffective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46,823–850.

Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J.(1996). Relations between work team characteris-tics and effectiveness: A replication and extension.Personnel Psychology, 49, 429–452.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. PsychologicalBulletin, 112, 155–159.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S.(2003). Applied multiple regression/correlationanalysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Curral, L. A., Forrester, R. H., Dawson, J. F., & West,M. A. (2001). It’s what you do and the way that youdo it: Team task, team size, and innovation-relatedgroup processes. European Journal of Work andOrganizational Psychology, 10, 187–204.

DeShon, R. P., & Landis, R. S. (1997). The dimen-sionality of the Hollenbeck, Williams, and Klein(1989) measure of goal commitment on complextasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-sion Processes, 70, 105–116.

Devine, D. J. (2002). A review and integration ofclassification systems relevant to teams in organi-zations. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, andPractice, 6, 291–310.

Dominick, P. G., Reilly, R. R., & McGourty, J. W.(1997). The effects of peer feedback on team mem-ber behavior. Group and Organization Manage-ment, 22, 508–520.

Donovan, J. J., & Radosevich, D. J. (1998). Themoderating role of goal commitment on the goaldifficulty–performance relationship: A meta-ana-lytic review and critical reanalysis. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 83, 308–315.

Earley, P. C., & Shalley, C. E. (1991). New perspec-tives on goals and performance: Merging motiva-tion and cognition. In G. Ferris & K. Rowland(Eds.), Research in personnel and human re-sources management (Vol. 9, pp. 121–157).Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Eby, L. T., & Dobbins, G. H. (1997). Collectivisticorientation in teams: An individual and group-level analysis. Journal of Organizational Behav-ior, 18, 275–295.


Erez, A., Lepine, J. A., & Elms, H. (2002). Effects ofrotated leadership and peer evaluation on the func-tioning and effectiveness of self-managed teams:A quasi-experiment. Personnel Psychology, 55,929–948.

Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A modelof task group effectiveness. Administration Sci-ence Quarterly, 29, 499–517.

Goodman, P. S., Ravlin, E., & Schminke, M. (1987).Understanding groups in organizations. In L. L.Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research inorganizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 121–173).Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. InJ. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizationalbehavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Heaney, C. A., Price, R. H., & Rafferty, J. (1995).Increasing coping resources at work: A field ex-periment to increase social support, improve workteam functioning, and enhance employee mentalhealth. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16,335–352.

Hecht, T. D., Allen, N. J., Klammer, J. D., & Kelly,E. C. (2002). Group beliefs, ability, and performance:The potency of group potency. Group Dynamics:Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 143–152.

Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale developmentpractices in the study of organizations. Journal ofManagement, 21, 967–988.

Hollenbeck, J. R., & Klein, H. J. (1987). Goal com-mitment and the goal-setting process: Problems,prospects, and proposals for future research. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 72, 212–220.

Hollenbeck, J. R., Klein, H. J., O’Leary, A. M., &Wright, P. M. (1989). Investigation of the con-struct validity of a self-report measure of goalcommitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,951–956.

Hollenbeck, J. R., Williams, C. R., & Klein, H. J.(1989). An empirical examination of the anteced-ents of commitment to difficult goals. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 74, 18–23.

Hyatt, D. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (1997). An examinationof the relationship between work group character-istics and performance: Once more into the breech.Personnel Psychology, 50, 553–585.

Ilgen, D. R. (1999). Teams embedded in organiza-tions. American Psychologist, 54, 129–139.

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984).Estimating within-group interrater reliability withand without response bias. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 69, 85–98.

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993).rwg: An assessment of within-group interrateragreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,306–309.

Klein, H. J., & Kim, J. S. (1998). A field study of theinfluence of situational constraints, leader–memberexchange, and goal commitment on performance.Academy of Management Journal, 41, 88–95.

Klein, H. J., & Mulvey, P. W. (1995). Two investi-gations of the relationships among group goals,goal commitment, cohesion and performance. Or-ganizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-cesses, 61, 44–53.

Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., &Alge, B. J. (1999). Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: Conceptual clarification and em-pirical synthesis. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 84, 885–896.

Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R.,Wright, P. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2001). The as-sessment of goal commitment: A measurementmodel meta-analysis. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 85, 32–55.

Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task moti-vation and incentives. Organizational Behaviorand Human Performance, 3, 157–189.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory ofgoal setting and task performance. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building apractically useful theory of goal setting and taskmotivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psy-chologist, 57, 705–717.

Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. M., Saari, L. M., & Latham,G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance:1969–1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125–152.

Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1987). Leading workersto lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 32, 106–129.

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001).A temporally based framework and taxonomy ofteam processes. Academy of Management Re-view, 26, 356–376.

McGrath, J. E. (1991). Time, interaction, and perfor-mance (TIP): A theory of groups. Small GroupResearch, 22, 147–174.

Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G., & Mohrman, A. M.(1995). Designing team-based organizations: Newforms for knowledge work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mueller, F., Procter, S., & Buchanan, D. (2000). Team-working in its context(s): Antecedents, nature anddimensions. Human Relations, 53, 1387–1424.

Mulvey, P. W., & Klein, H. J. (1998). The impact ofperceived loafing and collective efficacy on groupgoal processes and group performance. Organiza-tional Behavior and Human Decision Pro-cesses, 74, 62–87.

O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Martocchio, J. J., & Frink,D. D. (1994). A review of the influence of group


goals on group performance. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 37, 1285–1301.

Perrow, C. (1961). The analysis of goals in complexorganizations. American Sociological Review, 26,854–865.

Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B.(1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and thequantity and quality of work group performance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 262–270.

Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impactof organizational citizenship behavior on organiza-tional performance: A review and suggestions forfuture research. Human Performance, 10, 133–151.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., &Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biasesin behavioral research: A critical review of theliterature and recommended remedies. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

Porter, G., & Beyerlein, M. (2000). Historic roots ofteam theory and practice. In M. M. Beyerlein(Ed.), Social indicators research series: Vol. 6.Work teams: Past, present and future (pp. 3–24).Boston: Kluwer Academic.

Pritchard, R. D., Jones, S. T., Roth, P. L., Stuebing,K. K., & Ekeberg, S. E. (1988). Effects of groupfeedback, goal setting, and incentives on organiza-tional productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology(Monograph), 73, 337–358.

Reilly, R. R., & McGourty, J. (1998). Performanceappraisal in team settings. In J. W. Smither (Ed.),Performance appraisal: State of the art in practice(pp. 244–277). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Renn, R. W. (2003). Moderation by goal commitmentof the feedback–performance relationship: Theoreti-cal explanation and preliminary study. Human Re-source Management Review, 13, 561–580.

Rentsch, J. R., Heffner, T. S., & Duffy, L. T. (1994).What you know is what you get from experience.Group and Organization Management, 19,450–474.

Repetti, R. L. (1987). Individual and common com-ponents of the social environment at work andpsychological well-being. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 52, 710–720.

Resick, C. J., & Bloom, A. J. (1997). Effects of goalsetting in goal commitment, team processes, andperformance. Psychology: A Quarterly Journal ofHuman Behavior, 34, 2–8.

Salas, E., Bowers, C. A., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A.(1995). Military team research: 10 years ofprogress. Military Psychology, 7, 55–75.

Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., & Shearin, E. N.(1986). Social support as an individual differencevariable: Its stability, origins, and relational as-pects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 50, 845–855.

Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1987). Groups ashuman resources. In G. Ferris & K. Rowland(Eds.), Research in personnel and human re-sources management (Vol. 5, pp. 323–356).Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Sinclair, A. L. (2003). The effects of justice andcooperation on team effectiveness. Small GroupResearch, 34, 74–100.

Sonnentag, S. (1996). Work group factors and indi-vidual well-being. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbookof work group psychology (pp. 345–367). Chich-ester, England: Wiley.

Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990).Work teams: Applications and effectiveness.American Psychologist, 45, 120–133.

Sundstrom, E., McIntyre, M., Halfhill, T., & Rich-ards, H. (2000). Work groups: From the Haw-thorne studies to work teams of the 1990s andbeyond. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, andPractice, 4, 44–67.

Tardy, C. H. (1985). Social support measurement.American Journal of Community Psychology, 13,187–202.

Tesluk, P., Mathieu, J. E., Zaccaro, S. J., & Marks,M. (1997). Task aggregation issues in the analysisand assessment of team performance. In M. T.Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team per-formance assessment and measurement: Theory,methods and applications (pp. 197–224). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organization in action. Chi-cago: McGraw-Hill.

Tjosvold, D. (1984). Cooperation theory and organi-zations. Human Relations, 37, 743–767.

Van de Ven, A. H., Delbecq, A. L., & Koenig, R.(1976). Determinants of coordination modeswithin organizations. American Sociological Re-view, 41, 322–338.

Weldon, E., & Weingart, L. R. (1993). Group goalsand group performance. British Journal of SocialPsychology, 32, 307–334.

West, M. A., Borrill, C. S., & Unsworth, K. L.(1998). Team effectiveness in organizations. InC. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), Interna-tional review of industrial and organizational psy-chology (Vol. 13, pp. 1–48). London: Wiley.

Whitney, K. (1994). Improving group task perfor-mance: The role of group goals and group efficacy.Human Performance, 7, 55–78.

Wofford, J. C., Goodwin, V. L., & Premack, S.(1992). Meta-analysis of the antecedents of per-sonal goal level and of the antecedents and conse-quences of goal commitment. Journal of Manage-ment, 18, 595–615.

Yeatts, D. E., & Hyten, C. (1998). High-performingself-managed work teams: A comparison of theoryand practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

(Appendix follows)


Appendix

Scale Items Created or Adapted for This Study

Supportive Behaviors

1. We help each other out if someone falls behindin his/her work.

2. We cooperate to get the work done.

3. We encourage each other to do a good job.

4. We recognize and value the contributions ofeach member to task accomplishment.

5. We care about team members’ feelings andwell-being.

Team Performance

1. The members of this team attain their assignedperformance goals.

2. The members of this team produce quality work.

3. This team is productive.

Quality of Group Experience

1. The social climate in our work team is good.

2. In our team, relationships are harmonious.

3. In our team, we get along with each other.

Team Viability

1. Team members adjust to the changes that hap-pen in their work environment.

2. When a problem occurs, the members of thisteam manage to solve it.

3. The new members are easily integrated into thisteam.

4. The members of this team could work a longtime together.

Note. The items presented have been translatedfrom French.

Received November 11, 2004Revision received April 20, 2005

Accepted April 20, 2005 �


Documents

Team Goal Commitment and Team Effectiveness: The … · Team Goal Commitment and Team Effectiveness: The Role of Task Interdependence and Supportive Behaviors ... according to the